|
Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 10:26 AM EDT |
> You are merely attempting to change the word 'containing'
> to include stuff not contained.
No. I am saying you are taking for granted that we know unambiguously what must
be contained and I don't. You are taking for granted that "symbolic
reference" == "literal string" and I don't.
> If the instruction _contains_ a pointer then it is an
> instruction _containing_ a pointer.
Agreed.
> It is irrelevant for the purposes of this patent what
> that points to.
This is what has to be decided. Some say it is irrelevant, some say it is
relevant. There are supporting arguments for both positions.
I think this issue has been resolved when the judge decided that a reference
cannot be both symbolic and numeric. Since a pointer is numeric, it can't be
symbolic. Until the time the judge made that decision there was ambiguity.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|